-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality is not a hypothesis, it is a certainty.
Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church
Posts
Total:
563
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is not a hypothesis, it is a certainty.
Certainly the Unknown/Unknowable portion of "The Ultimate REality" is a logical necessity, howEVer, any additional characteristics or indeed any knowable features or Qualitative implications you project onto it are naked speculation.
Your pet "Ultimate Reality" is just as indicative of Animism or Zoroastrianism or Deism or Hinduism or Reincarnation or Space Aliens as it is "proof" or even "evidence" (hypothetically) supporting "Eastern Orthodox Christianity".
-->
@3RU7AL
If you don't believe The Ultimate Reality, that is, what TRULY is real rather than simply true in a sense, you are a fool.
And as you make no effort to verify these things yourself, but instead rely soley on your ability to rationalize these things with your mind, your opinion has hardly any value.
You are, after all, unwilling to go through the process necessary to have these things revealled to you.
The Ultimate Reality exists, and that is our God. You don't understand what that means so you associate this with space aliens. Which is STUPID.
But if you really desired theophany, theoria, and even theosis, this is in the experience of the church.
-->
@Mopac
If you don't believe (insert bald assertion here), that is, what TRULY is real rather than simply true in a sense, you are a (insert ad hominem here).
And as you make no effort to verify these things yourself, but instead rely soley on your ability to rationalize these things with your mind, your opinion has hardly any value.
I use my mind to process evidence and verify claims, that is literally the ONLY way for anyone to verify claims.
I'm not sure what alternative you might be suggesting. Even if someone were to "ask god", they would still be using their mind.
You are, after all, unwilling to go through the process necessary to have these things revealled to you.
This is a classic cult trap. "Join our club and prove your dedication by blindly following our instructions and you will be rewarded with special knowledge." - This sounds exactly like Scientology.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to trust anyone (blindly) who can't explain themselves.
If you want my loyalty, you must convince me.
You can't just gloss over the convincing part and say, trust me now, I'll convince you later.
The Ultimate Reality exists, and that is our God. You don't understand what that means so you associate this with space aliens. Which is STUPID.
We AGREE that the Unknown/Unknowable portion of the "Ultimate Reality" exists as a logical necessity.
HoweVer, the other aspects you try to attach to it (without any logical support whatsoever) are naked speculation.
But if you really desired theophany, theoria, and even theosis, this is in the experience of the church.
I'm not sure I "desire" any of those things. I'm actually pretty happy just using my own mind.
-->
@3RU7AL
I read your first sentence and ignored the rest, because I simply cannot bring myself to respect your lack of reverence for the subject matter.
We aree not talking about a fill in the blank. We are talking about The Truth itself, which you take as noumenon, a mental construct. The Ultimate Reality is not creation. You say God is creation. You are not respecting the subject matter.
-->
@Mopac
You say God is creation.
(IFF) your hypothetical god is the sole origin and sustainer of all things (AND) there was nothing "before" god (THEN) all things must necessarily be parts of this hypothetical god (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata/monism is necessarily true).
-->
@3RU7AL
All things are not "parts" of God as if God was made up of cells.
Creation is united to God by energy, not essence. What that means is that Orthodox Christianity understands God in a panentheistic sense, not a pantheistic sense. Creation and God are very distinct, but not in a dualistic sense. The energy of God pervades creation. God is present in creation through His Word and Spirit. Though this divine energy shares God's essence, and is thus uncreated, creation itself is distinct in an ontological sense.
So it would be incorrect to say that all things are "parts" of God. Though God is in everything, and all things subsist on God, created things are not God, pieces of God, or cells in God's body. If everything in creation was obliterated, God would exist eternally the same. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
All things are not "parts" of God as if God was made up of cells.
Dummy, cells are an analogy of creation and the soul and how it's all put together there is nothing apart from God. The physical body is made up entirely of cells, likewise souls are made up entirely of consciousness. Cells make up the physical body and consciousness makes up the soul, it's also the nature of God period, the two are one and the same as far as the nature of what it is made of. There are no other ingredients.
Creation is united to God by energy, not essence.
And energy like consciousness is all one substance, not two or more, there is no separate energy from another. Creation and God are united by the very thing that makes it's existence which would be energy. Energy of course is present with conscious activity.
What that means is that Orthodox Christianity understands God in a panentheistic sense, not a pantheistic sense.
Do you understand panentheism? it just means the conscious nature of God is not bound to only creation, God exists within and outside creation. It doesn't mean God is separate from creation, it means God is both within and outside creation at the same time. Both, not one or the other.
Creation and God are very distinct, but not in a dualistic sense.
Lol. Creation and God can never be distinct and of course within creation duality exists, there exists more than one state of awareness yet God is within all channels of awareness and can be nothing else.
The energy of God pervades creation. God is present in creation through His Word and Spirit. Though this divine energy shares God's essence, and is thus uncreated, creation itself is distinct in an ontological sense.
What the?? can anyone say contradiction??
If the energy of God pervades creation then God is one with creation....because God is why energy exists, and energy is why anything exists. There is no such a thing as separation or distinction from God. That is where you will always fall short in your theories. Or better yet dogma I should say.
So it would be incorrect to say that all things are "parts" of God.
No it wouldn't, unless you're a dummy. And then say what you wrote below.
Though God is in everything, and all things subsist on God, created things are not God, pieces of God, or cells in God's body. If everything in creation was obliterated, God would exist eternally the same. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
God is in everything yet some things are not God.....wow, do you read your own thoughts??
Nobody is debating if everything in creation was destroyed that only God would exist, because only God exists within everything lol.
-->
@EtrnlVw
As you open with calling me a dummy, I have ignored everything else you said.
Grace is given to the humble, not the arrogant.
-->
@Mopac
Dummy, ignore it all I don't care. Everything said was perfectly in place. If you want to be a dummy then fine.
-->
@EtrnlVw
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love...... If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
-->
@Mopac
I don't hate you, get real. You might be the one that does not love and accept his brother.
-->
@Mopac
I called you a dummy for reasons you can't answer, so don't make it look like 3ru7al is saying something absurd.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I am not really interested in your self justification.
Repentance would be a lot more effective.
-->
@Mopac
Already done that, but to you not necessary.
-->
@Mopac
As you open with calling me a dummy, I have ignored everything else you said.Grace is given to the humble, not the arrogant.
What's the difference between a "dummy" and your preferred term of "fool"?
-->
@EtrnlVw
"...if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."
-->
@3RU7AL
It is written, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
I certainly believe that this judgement which is not my own is self evident. Of course, if someone wishes to stop playing the fool, they can always admit that God exists.
-->
@Mopac
You rather me call you a dummy for believing dumb things or a pompous prick? because you have a real habit of labeling others.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Jesus loves you, EtrnlVw.
-->
@Stronn
The first thing to realize is that it is not survival that matters in evolution. Rather, it is offspring production. Sure, organisms must survive to produce offspring. But they could survive forever and if they produce no offspring they are an evolutionary dead-end.Once you realize that evolution is about offspring production, it becomes a simple math exercise. If you produce more than an average number of viable offspring for your species, then the gene variants you carry increase in frequency in the population. If you produce fewer than average viable offspring, then the gene variants you carry decrease in frequency. That is, in fact, the very definition of evolution: a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
This is the same bit of sophistry proposed by keithprosser. Evolution is not merely a statement of change. If that were the case, it would be useless as a theory given that it would consist of selecting facts which already exist (i.e. genes vary among offspring; therefore producing more offspring produces more variance.) Evolution theorizes how and why that supposedly happens. And because it attempts to do this, it cannot avoid making teleological arguments given that evolutionists lack observational proof on the past on which they base their assumptions. The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection was not AT ALL based on new scientific evidence or information; it was a shift in ideology. Hence, the shift was made through "consensus" not "discovery." Arguing over semantics doesn't change a thing.
-->
@Mopac
It is written.
Godists are pathetic fools.
-->
@Athias
As espoused by the westboro baptist church circa 1327ad.(i.e. genes vary among offspring; therefore producing more offspring produces more variance.
-->
@Athias
The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection was not AT ALL based on new scientific evidence or information;
Patently untrue. It was based on observations by paleontologists that the fossil record had much more branching and complexity than would be expected if evolution proceeded only toward certain goals, on the discovery of genetics and mutations as the means by which natural selection works, on observations in nature and the laboratory of selective pressure altering traits, and on the complete failure to discover any plausible mechanism by which orthogenesis might operate.
-->
@Stronn
Patently untrue.
No, it is in fact quite true. Feel free to verify or falsify anything I state.
It was based on observations by paleontologists that the fossil record had much more branching and complexity than would be expected if evolution proceeded only toward certain goals, on the discovery of genetics and mutations as the means by which natural selection works, on observations in nature and the laboratory of selective pressure altering traits, and on the complete failure to discover any plausible mechanism by which orthogenesis might operate.
More semantics. None of that which you've described was anything new to evolutionists, even those who purported orthogenesis. "Complexity" was nothing new. And the problem with orthogenesis as opposed to "natural selection," contrary to your non sequitur, was not a problem of evidence, but of logic. "Natural selection" does no better since it's the same teleological argument, only constructed conversely. Your very argument has fallen into a pitfall of logical error when stating that "failure to discover any plausible mechanism by which orthogenesis might operate" suggest invalidation. That is textbook argumentum ad ignorantium. There's no evidentiary difference between orthogenesis and natural selection, only the idea which evolutionists believe drive evolution--i.e. design or randomness. Regardless of the ideology, the premise is always an assumption about the past.
And this is where in my experience supporters of evolution are intellectually (and outright) dishonest, especially when making arguments against Theism/God. You conflate attempts at explanation (theory) with observation (law.)
-->
@Athias
No, it is in fact quite true. Feel free to verify or falsify anything I state.
I did.
Four lines of evidence is hardly "semantics".
-->
@Stronn
I did.Four lines of evidence is hardly "semantics".
That isn't falsification. You've only repeated an evolutionist's modus operandi, which incorporates the "definition" of evolution. I already know the explanations and arguments for evolution. Obfuscation aside, however, the significant part of that which you argue is that there's a distinct evidentiary discovery which differentiates orthogenesis and natural selection--an ideological explanation which you have conflated with scientific law (i.e. "evolution is a phenomena.") This is not the case at all. The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection, once again, is purely ideological. The science of the two doesn't change at all. Only the ideological premise of the explanations have changed. And you're merely obfuscating by stating, "fossil record had much more branching and complexity than would be expected." That isn't discovery. And it doesn't discredit orthogenesis at all.
Once again, feel free to verify or falsify any of that which I state.
-->
@Athias
Only the ideological premise of the explanations have changed.
Orthogenesis makes (teleological) claims beyond the epistemological limits of science.
-->
@Athias
Simply repeating that the shift from orthogenesis to natural selection is purely ideological does not make it so.
Science works by choosing among competing theories the one that best fits with observation. The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection occurred in exactly this way. It did not occur because people's values changed, which is implied by an ideological shift. It occurred for the simple reason that natural selection fits the evidence better. It better explains the chaotic branching of the fossil record. It explains why all attempts to find a mechanism for othogenesis have proven fruitless. And what sealed the deal was the discovery in the 1930's of the genetic code, the mechanism by which natural selection operates.
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
Orthogenesis makes (teleological) claims beyond the epistemological limits of science.
Yes, it does. Natural selection does this as well through a converse construction of the orthogenesis argument, but instead having "nature" as the designer--or as it's usually disguised, "randomness." Asserting randomness is also beyond the epistemological limits of science.
Simply repeating that the shift from orthogenesis to natural selection is purely ideological does not make it so.
No it does not. So, once again, feel free to verify or falsify anything I state.
Science works by choosing among competing theories the one that best fits with observation.
Explaining how science "works" isn't necessary. We are not speaking to science in general. We speaking specifically to evolutionary theory.
The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection occurred in exactly this way. It did not occur because people's values changed, which is implied by an ideological shift.
That's the exact reason it changed. Evolutionists were receiving criticisms of teleology until Ronald Fisher popularized "natural selection" despite Charles Darwin writing about it 70 years prior. The majority of evolutionary biologists still believed in orthogenesis until the 1930's. Once again, the shift was made through consensus, not evidence. Because the "evidence" which informs natural selection was there for decades before the shift.
And what sealed the deal was the discovery in the 1930's of the genetic code, the mechanism by which natural selection operates.
The genetic code wasn't "discovered" until 1961.
If you want to engage this delusion about evolution, then by all means, do so. If you want to continue to offer explanations of how evolution and science "works" then do so. You however are still not to arguing to the effect this discussion demands. You are essentially arguing semantics. If you intend to repeat generalized descriptions and definitions, let me know now, before the arguments become tautological.